Movies

Animation Awards

To wrap up the animation marathon (which should have taken six weeks, but took around four months instead), the Filmspotting podcast gave out some awards. I’ll do the same, and I’ll make some other closing comments.

  • Best Character: This one has to go to the Iron Giant. He’s this wonderful childlike character who has a great arc in the film. You would expect the movie to be more about how the Giant changed everyone else’s lives (which it does, and I don’t mean to diminish that), but it’s really about the robot itself, and how it grows and overcomes it’s original programming. The way we learn about the Giant and how the arc is handled by the filmmakers just makes this the most compelling character in the marathon.
  • Best Villain: This is a tough one, as there are more good choices here. All the films have a compelling villain, but I’m going to go with Akira. Even though we don’t see Akira until the end of the film, his presense looms over everything that preceeds it, and I kinda get the feeling that Akira is behind it all. Akira, to me, seems to be more than the physical manifestation of a young boy, but rather the catastrophic force that is unleashed as a result of human meddling (so, in a sense, Tetsuo is kinda part of this villain).
  • Best Scene: This is another hard one, but I’m going to have to agree with Adam from filmspotting in picking the brutal “Setsuko death montage” towards the end of Grave of the Fireflies. It’s quite possibly the most depressing scene I’ve ever seen, and while I don’t ever want to watch it again, I have to admit that it is the most powerful thing I watched in the marathon.
  • Most Visually Stunning: I think it’s pretty obvious that this is between Spirited Away & Akira, both of which are truly impressive works of animation. Part of me wants to give it to Spirited Away because of the incredible imagination that went into every visual element of the film, but while Akira’s story does not require as much in the way of imagination, it’s visual elements truly are spectacular (all the moreso because of the technology available at the time). We’ll call this a tie.
  • Best Film: This one is difficult. For me, it comes down to Spirited Away, The Iron Giant, and Grave of the Fireflies. While Fireflies is easily the most emotionally draining of the six films and quite well done in every respect, I can’t bring myself to say it’s the best film. It’s just too heartbreaking. I’ll give this award to Spirited Away. It’s just so good that I have a hard time talking about it (and not just because I’m afraid of ruining it for others, as I implied in my review). Sometimes this sort of thing can be inexplicably subjective, and Spirited Away is one of those cases.

None of this is to say that Watership Down or Ghost in the Shell were bad films, they just didn’t neatly fit into the categories (if there was a “most thought provoking” award, it’d certainly go to Ghost in the Shell). All the films in the marathon were well done and certainly worth a watch, especially if you’re not familiar with the genre (or if you’re only familiar with the Disney style of the genre).

The one thing that bothers me about the list of films in the marathon was that the Anime portion was almost criminally short. While I think the Anime films in the marathon are all sorta landmark achievements, they are really only touching the surface of the genre, and a few of them are, well, difficult films (especially Fireflies). If I were to introduce someone to the genre, I’d probably start with Spirited Away. In any case, this will not be the last you hear about Anime on the blog, though I’m not sure where I’m headed next. I think at some point, I’ll have to list out all the Anime that I’ve seen and solicit some suggestions… but for now, I’ve got several live-action films in my Netflix queue that I’ve been neglecting.

Animation Marathon: Spirited Away and The Iron Giant

So the animation marathon was on a bit of a hiatus, as I was pretty much playing along with the Filmspotting guys, and they got caught up in best-of-2006 lists (like me) and film festivals (not yet for me, but the Philly fest is in April). They started up again last week, and will be finishing up on Friday. I’d already seen the last two films in the marathon, but unlike the other ones I saw before (Akira and Ghost in the Shell) my opinion of these has not changed much (they’re just as good as before). As such, I won’t be spending a ton of time on either one… but I think these are the two most enjoyable films in the marathon. There will be one more post after this one, wrapping up the marathon (though I have a sneaking suspicion that this will not be the last of animation on this blog). Without further adieu, here are the last two films in the marathon (these reviews will be considerably less spoiler-laden than other marathon reviews).

  • Spirited Away: Of the four Hayao Miyazaki films that I’ve seen, I believe this to be the best. This is either a really easy film to review, or really hard. Easy because all it requires is that I give it an enthusiastic recommendation (which I do, go see it!). That’s all you really need, but I’ll give you the primary (spoiler free) reason: the film’s story has many turns that are unexpected, but necessary and logical. For the most part, I didn’t know what to expect for the duration of the movie. By the end, I couldn’t see any other way the story could have progressed, but I couldn’t see where it was going at any point in the story. I guess I should mention that this sort of story actually turns some people off (in the Filmspotting review, Adam felt like I do, while Sam didn’t particularly like that part of it, though he still recommended the film). Visually, it’s spectacular, and Miyazaki perfectly captures some of the subtleties of childhood (like, say, Japanese cootie shots). And this is where the hard part comes in: because of the unexpected way in which the story progresses, I don’t want to ruin it for you. Just go watch it. When you’re done, check out Steven’s spoiler-laden thoughts.
  • The Iron Giant: As I already mentioned, I’ve seen this film before, and I liked it a lot. It was similar to what I was used to in an animated film, but also very different. Upon revisiting it, I was not all that surprised to find that the film was made by Brad Bird, the creator of The Incredibles. Both films share a similar quality, and they’re both great (personally, I prefer The Incredibles, but Giant is still quite good). The Iron Giant is probably the best American 2D animated film in the past 10 years or so.

    The Iron Giant

    It follows the story of an innocent giant alien robot that lands on earth and befriends a little boy. A paranoid government agent wreaks havoc when he finds out about it and tries to destroy the robot (which is programmed for self-defense). There are a lot of things to like about this movie: the story, the characters, and the visuals are all great. But in the end, it’s the childlike Giant that steals the show. Sam from Filmspotting called the Giant one of the greatest characters ever, and it would be hard to argue against that. It’s got the elements of a preachy movie, but it doesn’t go too far overboard, and it’s incredibly entertaining anyway. (More screenshots and possible spoilers below the fold)

This just about wraps up the animation marathon. Another short post covering what Filmspotting is tentatively calling “The Harryhausens” (animation marathon awards) and we’re done.

Revenge of Oscar Liveblogging

It’s that time again. I’ll be liveblogging the Oscars again tonight, as is tradition here at Kaedrin (previous installments: 2006, 2005 and 2004). Now, I’ve seen more movies in 2006 than any other year I can think of and yet, I still haven’t seen the majority of the nominees. Like that matters. Once again, I’ll have to rely on the intangibles of the Oscars in determining who is going to win (incidentally, my average for the past 3 years is around 74%, which should tell you something about the intangibles).That said, this year’s picks seem a little more popular with regular folks than last year’s lineup. As John Scalzi notes:

This is another low-grossing year for the Oscars, since aside from The Departed, none of the Best Picture nominees has cleared $100 million. However, it’s not the total commercial embarrassment last year’s slate was — only two of this year’s Best Picture nominees have been outgrossed by a Best Documentary nominee instead of all of them. It’s progress!

Indeed! However, I’m betting that within the next decade, a Best Documentary film will be nominated for Best Picture. But I digress. On with the picks:

  • Best Picture: This is actually the toughest of the major categories. The only film that gets an obvious axe is The Queen, as I suspect the voters will think the Best Actress nod will be enough. I’d say that Eastwood’s Letters from Iwo Jima is next on the chopping block, as it’s a foreign language film told from the perspective of our enemy. Little Miss Sunshine probably has a better chance than a lot of critics say, because it’s the only one of the nominees that people seem to really enjoy. The academy typically doesn’t reward comedies, but Sunshine has a sorta Shakespeare in Love (which somehow managed to beat out Saving Private Ryan in 98) feeling to it. The popular choices generally seem to fall between Babel and The Departed. Neither film seems to be tremendously popular with the Academy, but I’ll say that The Departed will have the momentum tonight, and that will be my choice.
  • Best Director: Martin Scorsese. I mean, come on, the guy is due. Not only that, but The Departed is legitimately a great film. The only real threat comes from Clint Eastwood, but I suspect that the Academy will recognize that Clint already has two statues for directing and will want to right their several wrongs (i.e. Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and Goodfellas). This is complete speculation, but I’d like to think that academy members, which are predominantly actors, will fall into line on this one. Hell, I bet Clint would vote for Scorsese. One other note: It’s really nice to see Paul Greengrass get the nomination as he did an outstanding job in United 93, but it’s a sympathy nomination that won’t carry over to the award.
  • Best Actor: Forest Whitaker for The Last King of Scotland. The only thing he has going against him is that, from what I understand, he plays more of a supporting role. But he has a lot going for him, not the least of which is that he apparently gives a stellar performance. Plus, I don’t see much in the way of competition. Then again, I haven’t seen any of the films in this category (!), so I could be completely off base. If Leonardo DiCaprio was nominated for The Departed, I think he would have been a good dark horse, but somehow I don’t think Blood Diamond has legs. Peter O’Toole has some momentum, but I don’t think it’s enough to unseat Whitaker as the favorite.
  • Best Actress: Helen Mirren for The Queen. No contest here.
  • Best Supporting Actor: Eddie Murphy in Dreamgirls. The film got the snub for Best Picture and Director, so I’m betting they’ll have the sympathy vote in the smaller categories. Alan Arkin has a fair chance here, though.
  • Best Supporting Actress: Jennifer Hudson for Dreamgirls. I think she’s pretty much a lock too.
  • Best Original Screenplay: Another difficult category. My superstition is that Screenplay awards tend to go to films that do well commercially, but sometimes don’t do so well in the major categories (the most notable evidence for this that comes to mind is Pulp Fiction, but I called this a superstition for a reason). As such, I think this will go to Little Miss Sunshine. I think this may be a fair predictor to how well Sunshine will do in Best Picture (if it wins screenplay, I think it’s out of the running). I think the other nominees have a fair chance, but Sunshine stands out.
  • Best Adapted Screenplay: The Departed. The competition for this is somewhat week. There is some buzz that Borat will take the statue, but I can’t imagine that happening. I mean, was there really a script for most of that movie? It would fit with my Screenplay going to the more popular film theory though…
  • Editing: Another tough one, but I think this is going to be The Departed‘s night. I’d say there is a pretty good chance for Babel or United 93 here as well.
  • Cinematography: I’ll give this one to Pan’s Labyrinth, though it could also go to Children of Men (personally, I loved the cinematography in The Illusionist, but I don’t think it has a chance). Also, why wasn’t The Fountain nominated? I think it would have an easy win here if it were.
  • Visual Effects: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest
  • Musical Score: Babel.
  • Best Song: Well, it’s almost certainly a song from Dreamgirls, but three were nominated! I’ll just pick “Listen.”
  • Makeup: Pan’s Labyrinth.
  • Best Animated Film: <a href="Cars“>Cars.
  • Best Documentary: An Inconvenient Truth (though it could easily go to one of the other nominees).
  • Best Foreign Language Film: Pan’s Labyrinth.

Well, that’s it for now. Check back around Oscar time for lots of updates! Feel free to post your picks in the comments…

Update 8:28 pm: Oh boy! Only 2 minutes to go! I don’t get the appeal of the preshows. The Barbara Walters special is theoretically neat, but they didn’t have anyone interesting this year. And I really, really don’t get the red carpet stuff. But I’m not a fashion nerd, so whatever.

Update 8:33 pm: This montage where all the nominees goof off is a great idea. If only these people were more interesting when they give their acceptance speeches. Still, this makes for a great way to start the Oscars. Good sign? Or downhill from here?

Update 8:39 pm: Ok, Ellen’s not doing that bad. I even laughed a couple of times. But I’m going to start drinking. This is probably a bad sign.

Update 8:42 pm: “It’s not that we don’t have time for long speeches, it’s that we don’t have time for boring speeches.” Brilliant. I’ve heard that the Oscar producers have been pushing for winners to be more interesting and do less “thanking” of random people. We’ll see, I guess.

Update 8:48 pm: Pan’s Labyrinth takes the Art Direction award, and deservedly so. Apparently I missed this one when making my pics, but I probably would have picked this one. Annnnd, yep, boring speech.

Update 8:55 pm: Will Ferrell & Jack Black are funny. Comedies really don’t do well at the Oscars. The last outright comedy that won was Annie Hall in 1977. I don’t know if this augors for or against Little Miss Sunshine. And John C. Reilly joins the show! I honestly think that dude should have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor for his work in Talledega Nights. Funny stuff.

Update 8:58 pm: Pan’s Labyrinth takes the Makup award. So far, I’m 1 for 1.

Update 9:01 pm: Poor kids. Not only were they forced to get up in front of the entire world and read bad jokes off the teleprompter, but they’re presenting the award for animated shorts.

Update 9:02 pm: Yeah! The Danish Poet won. Woo Hoo! I can’t believe it won! It’s so exciting! Holy shit, I never thought they’d reward that short! This is great!

Update 9:04 pm: West Bank Story wins the live action short award, and the clip they showed is actually kinda funny (it’s a comedy/musical that takes place between to falafel stands in Israel/Palestine) . And holy crap, Jack Nicholson has no hair! Sorry, just saw that. And this guy is actually giving a decent speech.

Update 9:07 pm: Man, I hate trackbacks. I’m temporarily removing the Scalzi link at the top of this post, as I have to wait for the trackback to fail every time I update this post. I’ll put it back in later. Sorry John!

Update 9:13 pm: This sound effects choir is pretty neat. Another good idea. Hey, is that Michael Winslow from the Police Academy movies? This is pretty awesome.

Update 9:16 pm: Sound editing jokes were actually kinda funny. Another award I neglected to pick. Sorry. Letters from Iwo Jima takes the award and… yep, boring thank yous. Seriously, maybe they should forbid anything but a generic thank you and we’ll get more interesting acceptance speeches.

Update 9:18 pm: I guess we’re getting all the boring awards out of the way first, huh? I wonder how they decide what order to do the awards in. Sometimes they’ll put big awards at the beginning of the show, which I guess is supposed to suck in viewers, and then keep them watching until the end. Which is better? You got me. Dreamgirls wins Sound Mixing. It being a musical, I guess that makes sense (another award I didn’t pick).

Update 9:25 pm: Best Supporting Actor goes to… Alan Arkin! I’m 1 for 2 now, but I don’t have any issues with it. Hmm, does Ellen know if Scorsese won? This would be kinda cruel if he didn’t.

Update 9:35 pm: I’ve made no secret that I hate the musical performances at the Oscars (with the notable exception of Blame Canada and that time Antonio Banderas came out and sang that song, which was so bad as to be entertaining). Putting two in a row is a mixed blessing. It’s bad because, well, I have to endure it. But it’s good because we’re at least getting some of it over with, like ripping off a band aid really fast. I almost wish they’d do all the nominees now.

Update 9:37 pm: Yay global warming!

Update 9:43 pm: Ok, so not only has Jack Nicholson shaved his head, but he’s wearing sunglasses too. Every year, some idiot does this. Samuel L. Jackson made it work. Nicholson kinda does, but a part of me just thinks he got high and didn’t want anyone to know. Best Animated Feature goes to Happy Feet. Crap. I’m 1 for 3.

Update 9:46 pm: Affleck was the bomb in Phantoms, yo! Montages are actually pretty entertaining…

Update 9:51 pm: William Monahan wins for The Departed, making me 2 for 4. He at least makes a funny comment at the beginning of his speech before devolving back into the thank yous.

Update 10:01 pm: Costumes, yet another award I neglected to pick, goes to Marie Antoinette. Her speech was filled with thank yous, but it was still kinda decent…

Update 10:07 pm: As Tom Cruise kisses some studio head’s ass, I just want to mention that in the above entry, I didn’t mean to imply that Marie Antoinette’s reanimated corpse gave an acceptance speech. It was the costume designer for the movie, not Marie. Whoa, what’s going on with her neck? Again, I’m not referring Marie Antoinette, but the studio head woman.

Update 10:11 pm: Ellen got Stephen Spielberg to take a picture of Clint Eastwood and her so that she could put it on MySpace. It was funnier than it sounds.

Update 10:14 pm: Cinematography goes to Pan’s Labyrinth, and I’m at 3 for 5.

Update 10:21 pm: Heh, Robert Downey jr making fun of his drug abuse. Why are there only three nominees for visual effects this past year? Strange. Oscar goes to Pirates, and after a rocky start I’m at 4 for 6. Another joke in an acceptance speech! And I can tell he made it up on the spot because he referenced a joke from earlier in the night.

Update 10:30 pm: Mitchieville is also liveblogging: “If you are watching the Osacrs right now, you’re listening to two insufferable foreigners yammering on about nothing. Just hurry the hell up, foreigners, I gotta pee.” And holy crap, Pan’s Labryinth doesn’t win! How can this be? Seriously, what’s going on here? I’ve never heard of “Lives of Others” but come on, how can Pan’s Labryinth lose this award? I guess it was a little too dark for the academy…

Update 10:33 pm: A tribute to Snakes on a Plane? Why not?

Update 10:37 pm: And best supporting actress goes to Jennifer Hudson. I guess they can’t all be upsets. I’m 5 for 8. Ok, she thanked God twice. Kissass.

Update 10:40 pm: It’s not the Superbowl, but the Oscars always has some good new commercials. There’s been a couple, but the highlight has to be Wes Anderson’s American Express commercial about a half hour ago: “Can you do a .357 with a bayonet?” Heh.

Update 10:50 pm: Hey, it’s Jerry Seinfeld and they let him badmouth theaters. Nice. Best Documentary goes to An Inconvenient Truth. Shocker. I’m 6 for 9. Yay global warming.

Update 10:55 pm: Ennio Morricone’s spaghetti western scores are so awesome, and I had no idea that he did all these other ones and oh damn, a music performance that isn’t even one of this year’s nominees. I’m getting another beer.

Update 11:00 pm: I think Ennio Morricone just cursed in Italian and Clint is just winging it in an attempt to cover it up.

Update 11:09 pm: Best original score goes to Babel and I’m at 7 for 10. Guy is boring. You get the picture.

Update 11:11 pm: Oh shit, the president of the Academy. And he’s cheating on a bet. Run!

Update 11:15 pm: And Original Screenplay goes to Little Miss Sunshine. I thought this was a tough category, but now that I think about it, Sunshine was the obvious choice. Hence my pick, and I’m at 8 for 11.

Update 11:28 pm: Best orignal song goes to… An Inconvenient Truth? Huh, I guess I should have seen that coming – by having three nominations, Dreamgirls probably ended up splitting their votes. Plus, Hollywood is falling all over themselves for Al Gore. Hopefully no more music performances tonight. Indeed, we’re getting to a point where the only awards left are going to be big ones. Yay global warming. I’m at 8 for 12.

Update 11:35 pm: Michael Mann’s look at America? Intriguing, but it turns out to be just another montage. A good one, though.

Update 11:44 pm: Gah, I forgot about the Editing award. It goes to The Departed, and she makes an interesting comment about this being the third Scorsese film to win for Editing. Is the next half hour going to be all Marty, all the time?

Update 11:46 pm: Dammit, I forgot about the annual dead people montage. Come on, get to the good awards people!

Update 11:52 pm: As an aside, why wasn’t Philip Seymour Hoffman nominated for MI III? Oh, and Hellen Mirren wins, of course. In fact, I wrote and published this before she actually won.

Update 11:54 pm: You see, I was right. She won (Take that, Sov!). And I’m at 10 for 14. The way they’re going, they’re probably going to put Best Director as the last award announced. And Scorsese will lose.

Update 12:04 am: Just announce the award already! Alright, Forest Whitaker wins, got it, NEXT! (No, I’m not impatient, why? I’m at 11 for 15.)

Update 12:07 am: Three Amigos? Uh, yeah, whatever, just tell us that Scorsese won. Please.

Update 12:10 am: Holy fuck, he won. Three 6 Mafia: One, Martin Scorsese: One. It’s a dead heat now. Heh, I bet he’s had that “check the envelope” joke ready for 15 years (and like, 5 nominations). Great speech, and thank God we won’t have to endure the “Will he win” debate every time he makes a film (we probably will, but one can hope).

Update 12:14 am: And The Departed takes best picture. Congrats Marty, it’s a great night for your film.

Final Update 12:17 am: Ungh, it started out good, but went mostly downhill until the end when Scorsese won. I ended up at 13 for 17, which is around 76% (a little above average for me). So much for this being a night of upsets (except for Pan’s Labyrinth losing out on best foreign language film, which it totally deserved.) I think maybe I’ll have to take the DVR approach that James Berardinelli mentioned in his post, thus condensing the Oscars into about an hour or so.

The Actual Final Update 2.26.07, 7:00 pm: It appears that Alex has also liveblogged the event, while Steven thinks that the Academy is running out of time to give Roger Corman the lifetime achievement award (I concur).

Top 10 Box Office Performance

So after looking at a bunch of top 10 films of 2006 lists, and compiling my own, I began to wonder just how popular these movies really were. Film critics are notorious for picking films that the average viewer thinks are boring or pretentious. Indeed, my list features a few such picks, and when I think about it, there are very few movies on the list that I’d give an unqualified recommendation. For instance, some of the movies on my list are very violent or otherwise graphic, and some people just don’t like that sort of thing (understandably, of course). United 93 is a superb film, but not everyone wants to relive 9/11. And so on. As I mentioned before, top 10 lists are extremely personal and usually end up saying more about the person compiling the list than anything else, but I thought it would be interesting to see just how mainstream these lists really are. After all, there is a wealth of box office information available for every movie, and if you want to know how popular something is, economic data seems to be quite useful (though, as we’ll see, perhaps not useful enough).

So I took nine top 10 lists (including my own) and compiled box office data from Box Office Mojo (since they don’t always have budget information, I sometimes referenced IMDB or Wikipedia) and did some crunching (not much, I’m no statistician). I chose the lists of some of my favorite critics (like the Filmspotting guys and the local guy), and then threw in a few others for good measure (I wanted a New York critic, for instance).

The data collected includes domestic gross, budget and the number of theaters (widest release). From that data, I calculated the net gross and dollars per theater (DPT). You’d think this would be pretty conclusive data, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized just how incomplete a picture this paints. Remember, we’re using this data to evaluate various top 10 lists, so when I chose domestic gross, I inadvertantly skewed the evaluation against lists that featured foreign films (however, I am trying to figure out whose list works best in the U.S. so I think it is a fair metric). So the gross only gives us part of the picture. The budget is an interesting metric, as it provides information about how much money a film’s backers thought it would make and it provides a handy benchmark with which to evaluate (unfortunately, I was not able to find budget figures for a number of the smaller films, further skewing the totals you’ll see). Net Gross is a great metric because it incorporates a couple of different things: it’s not just a measure of how popular a movie is, it’s a measure of how popular a movie is versus how much it cost to make (i.e. how much a film’s producers believed in the film). In the context of a top 10 list, it’s almost like pretending that the list creator was the head of a studio who chose what films to greenlight. It’s not a perfect metric, but it’s pretty good. The number of theaters the film showed in is an interesting metric because it shows how much faith theater chains had in the movie (and in looking at the numbers, it seems that the highest grossing films also had the most theaters). However, this could again be misleading because it’s only the widest release. I doubt there are many films where the number of theaters doesn’t drop considerably after opening weekend. Dollars per theater is perhaps the least interesting metric, but I thought it interesting enough to include.

One other thing to note is that I gathered all of this data earlier this week (Sunday and Monday), and some of the films just recently hit wide distribution (notably Pan’s Labyrinth and Children of Men, neither of which have recouped costs yet) and will make more money. Some films will be re-released around Oscar season, as the studios seek to cash in on their award winning films.

I’ve posted all of my data on a public Google Spreadsheet (each list is on a separate tab), and I’ve linked each list below to their respective tab with all the data broken out. This table features the totals for the metrics I went over above: Domestic Gross, Budget, Net Gross, Theaters, and Dollars Per Theater (DPT).

#movie-data {border: 2px solid #A8B3C2;}

#movie-data th {vertical-align: bottom; background-color: #A8B3C2; color: #EEEEEE; padding: 3px;}

#movie-data tr:hover {background-color: #E0E4EB}

#movie-data td {padding: 3px; color: #444;}

#movie-data .red {color: #B73B3B;}

#movie-data .green {color: #239A23;}

#movie-data a {font-weight: bold;}

#movie-data .odd {background-color: #F0F2F5}

List Gross Budget Net Gross Theaters DPT
Kaedrin
(Mark Ciocco)
$484,154,522 $319,850,000 $164,092,855 16,675 $29,034.75
Reelviews
(James Berardinelli)
$586,767,062 $607,000,000 -$20,674,428 16,217 $36,182.22
Filmspotting
(Adam Kempenaar)
$210,592,457 $234,850,000 -$27,159,180 8,589 $24,518.86
Filmspotting
(Sam Van Hallgren)
$79,756,419 $152,204,055 -$73,445,839 4,467 $17,854.58
Philadelphia Inquirer
(Steven Rea)
$236,690,299 $239,000,000 -$40,474,006 10,239 $23,116.54
The New York Times
(A.O. Scott)
$104,484,584 $92,358,000 $11,238,032 3,641 $28,696.67
Rolling Stone
(Peter Travers)
$419,088,036 $264,400,000 $119,130,515 14,784 $28,347.41
Washington Post
(Stephen Hunter)
$540,183,488 $362,900,000 $169,683,807 15,394 $35,090.52
The Onion AV Club
(Scott Tobias)
$195,779,774 $191,580,000 $1,308,777 6,844 $28,606.05

This was quite an interesting exercise, and it would appear from the numbers, that perhaps not all film critics are as out of touch as originally thought. Or are they? Let’s take a closer look.

  • Kaedrin (Mark Ciocco): The most surprising thing about my list is that every single film in my top 10 made a profit. In addition, my high net gross figure (around $164 million, which ended up being second out of the nine lists) isn’t overly dependent on any single film (the biggest profit vehicle on my list was Inside Man, with about $43 millon, or about 1/4 my net gross). The only real wild card here is Lady Vengeance, which only made about $212 thousand. Its budget figure wasn’t available and it was a foreign film that was only released in 15 theaters (I saw it on DVD). Given this data, I think my list is the most well rounded of all the surveyed lists. Not to pat myself on the back here, but my list is among the top 3 lists for all of the metrics (and #1 in theaters). Plus, as you’ll read below, the lists that appear ahead of me have certain outliers that skew the data a bit. However, even with all of that, I might not have the most mainstream list.
  • Reelviews (James Berardinelli): James is probably the world’s greatest amateur critic, and his list is quite good (it shares 4 films with my own list). Indeed, his list leads the Domestic Gross and Budget Categories, as well as Dollars Per Theater. But look at that Net Gross metric! Almost -$21 million dollars. Ouch. What happened? Superman Returns happened. It made a little more than $200 million dollars at the box office, but it cost $270 million to make it. This skews James’ numbers considerably, and he would have been around $50 million in the green if it weren’t for Superman. He also has two films that were released in less than 25 theaters, which skews the numbers a bit as well.
  • Filmspotting (Adam Kempenaar): Of the two critics on the Filmspotting podcast, Adam is by far the one I agree with more often, but his list is among the more unprofitable ones. This is due in great part to his inclusion of Children of Men, which has only recently come out in wide release, and which still has to make almost $50 million before it recoups its cost (I think it will make more money, but not enough to break even). To a lesser extent, his inclusion of two foreign films (Pan’s Labyrinth and Volver) has also skewed the results a bit (both films did well at the foreign box office). Given those disclaimers, Adam’s list isn’t as bad as it seems, but it still not too hot. It is, however, better than his co-host:
  • Filmspotting (Sam Van Hallgren): I think it’s safe to say that Sam takes the award for least mainstream critic. He’s got the worst Domestic Gross and Net Gross of the group, by a significant margin. Like his co-host Adam, this can partly be explained by his inclusion of Children of Men and other small, independent, or foreign films. But it’s a pretty toxic list. Only two films on his list turned a profit, which is a pretty miserable showing. Interestingly enough, I still think Sam is a pretty good critic. You don’t have to agree with a critic to get something useful out of them, and I know what I’m getting with Sam. Plus, it helps that he’s got a good foil in his co-host Adam.
  • Philadelphia Inquirer(Steven Rea): I kinda like my local critic’s list, and it’s definitely worth noting that his pick of the Chinese martial arts epic Curse of the Golden Flower has impacted his list considerably (as a high budget foreign film that did well internationally, but which understandably didn’t do that great domestically). That choice alone (-$40 million) put him in the red. He’s also got Pan’s Labyrinth on his list, which will go on to make more money. Plus, he suffers from a data problem in that I couldn’t find budget figures for The Queen, which has made around $35 million and almost certainly turned a profit. Even with those caveats, he’s still only treading water.
  • The New York Times (A.O. Scott): I wanted to choose a critic from both New York and LA (due to the fact that most LA critics seemed to have a lot of ties, I decided not to include their lists), and A.O. Scott’s list provides a decent example of why. Three of his picks were only shown in 6 theaters or less. This is more or less what you’d expect from a New York critic. They are one of the two cities that gets these small movies, so you’d expect their critics to show their superiority by including these films in their list (I’m sure they’re good films too, but I think this is an interesting dynamic). In any case, it’s worth noting that Mr Scott (heh) actually turned a profit. How could this be? Well, he included Little Miss Sunshine on his list. That movie has a net gross of around $50 million dollars, which gave Mr Scott significant breathing room for his other picks.
  • Rolling Stone (Peter Travers): I’ve always thought of this guy as your typical critic that doesn’t like anything popular, but his list is pretty decent, and he turns out to be among the tops in terms of net gross with $119 million. One caveat here is that he does feature a tie in his list (so he has 11 films), but the tie consists of the two Clint Eastwood war flicks, both of which have lost considerable amounts of money (in other words, this list is actually a little undervalued by my metrics). So how did his list get so high? He also had Little Miss Sunshine on his list, which, as already mentioned, was quite the moneymaker. But even bigger than that, he included Borat in his list. Borat is a low budget movie that made huge amounts of cash, and it’s net gross comes in at almost $110 million! So those two films account for the grand majority of his net gross. However, of all the lists, I think his is probably the most mainstream (while still retaining a critics edge) and gives my list a run for its money.
  • Washington Post (Stephen Hunter): I wanted to choose a critic from WaPo because it’s one of the other “papers of record,” and much to my amazement, his turns out to have the highest net gross! He seems to feature the most obscure picks, with 4 films that I couldn’t even find budget data for (but which seem pretty small anyway). He’s got both Little Miss Sunshine and Borat, which proves to be quite a profitable duo, and he’s also got big moneymakers like The Departed and Casino Royale. It’s an interesting list.
  • The Onion AV Club (Scott Tobias): He scrapes by with around $1 million net gross, though it should be noted that his list features Children of Men (a big loss film) and a couple of movies that I couldn’t find budgets for. It’s an interesting list, but it comes in somewhere around the upper middle of the pack.

Whew! That took longer than I thought. Which critic is the most mainstream? I think a case could be made for my list, Peter Travers’ list, or Stephen Hunter’s list. I think I’d give it to Peter Travers, with myself in a close second place and Stephen Hunter nipping at our heels.

Statistically, the biggest positive outliers appeared to be Little Miss Sunshine and Borat, and the biggest negative outliers appeared to be Flags of our Fathers and Children of Men (both of which will make more money, as they are currently in theaters).

Obviously, this list is not authoritative, and I’ve already spent too much time harping on the qualitative issues with my metrics, but I found it to be an interesting exercise (if I ever do something similar again, I’m going to need to find a way to automate some of the data gathering, though). Well, this pretty much shuts the door on the 2006 Kaedrin Awards season. I hope you enjoyed it.

Best Films of 2006

Top 10 lists are intensely personal affairs. When it comes to movies (or art in general), you have to walk the narrow line between subjective and objective evaluations, and I inevitably end up with a list that says more about me than the movies I selected. James Berardinelli says it well:

I would be surprised if anyone else (critic or otherwise) has an identical Top 10 list to mine. But therein lies the enjoyment of examining individual Top 10 lists: they provide insight into the mindset of the one who has assembled them. It doesn’t matter whether one agrees with their choices or not; that’s irrelevant. It’s about learning something about a person through the movies they like. I don’t like “group” lists. To me, they are valueless – a generic popularity contest that reveals nothing.

I actually kinda like “group” lists, but I digress. The point is that these are generally movies that I like or otherwise moved me. Context matters. Some films are on the list because I had low expectations that were exceeded beyond imagination, and some are there because I had a great theater-going experience (apparently a rarity in this day and age). As I’ve done in years past, my top 10 is listed in a roughly reverse order, with the best last.

Top 10 Movies of 2006

* In roughly reverse order

  • Thank You for Smoking: The bottom two slots in the top 10 were very hard to fill, as there were essentially 4 films (with 4 very different styles) I wanted to include. I went into this film expecting a bland, heavy-handed activism and found myself astounded. This film somehow manages to make a tobacco lobbyist a sympathetic character without excusing the tobacco industry. That said, big tobacco really isn’t the target of the film – it’s more about media spin and the power of argument than anything else. Aaron Eckhart turns in a great performance as said lobbyist, and I’m not sure anyone else could have pulled this off. It’s a humorous film that displays an almost libertarian attitude towards the power of debate. It has its flaws, but it won me over.

    More Info: [IMDB] [Amazon]

  • The Descent: This was the best horror film of the year, and one of the most enjoyable moviegoing experiences as well. Solid direction and acting, brilliant cinematography, and well executed scare sequences contribute to a tension filled film.

    More Info: [IMDB] [Amazon] [Full Review]

  • Clerks II: What can I say, I’m just a sucker for Kevin Smith’s brand of raunchy pop-culture laden humor. As usual, he mixes the comedy into a more conventional dramatic story, and in this case, he’s more than successful. Borat was funny, but Clerks II was both funny and moving.

    More Info: [IMDB] [Amazon]

  • Casino Royale: I’ve never been all that enamored with James Bond, but this reboot of the franchise was a revelation – quite possibly the most enjoyable movie going experience and pleasant surprise of the year for me. The film has its flaws, but it overcomes them with its action-packed charm.

    More Info: [IMDB] [Amazon] [Winner of 3 Kaedrin Movie Awards]

  • Inside Man: I’m not normally a fan of Spike Lee “Joints,” but this film had me on the edge of my seat. It’s a heist film, though it does make use of a historical implausibility and some macguffins. There are hints of Lee’s more typical material, but it’s done with a surprisingly deft touch (none of the heavy-handedness that I expected from him). Not the best heist film of all time, but a solid and surprisingly entertaining film.

    More Info: [IMDB] [Amazon]

  • Lady Vengeance: The third and final film in Chan-wook Park’s “Vengeance Trilogy,” this film has a reputation for being the worst of the three films. I, on the other hand, think it might be my favorite, for two reasons. First, it’s story is far more believable than the other two, and second, this film actually ends with a touch of hope. The film is perhaps not as twisted as it’s sister films, but it’s still pretty messed up. The vengeance isn’t as layered as the other films, but that only serves to differentiate the films. I enjoyed it a lot.

    More Info: [IMDB] [Amazon]

  • Hard Candy: It is perhaps an uncomfortable film to watch (especially for the guys), but it is also quite a good film. It deals with pedophilia and features only two characters and one major setting. Given these traits, it’s amazing that the film manages to retain a lot of tension and challenge viewers with its shifting sympathies. Excellent performances by both leads, though Ellen Page’s performance is particularly noteworthy.

    More Info: [IMDB] [Amazon] [Capsule Review]

  • Brick: Sam Spade goes to high school in this remarkable high-concept mixture of genres. Writer/director Rian Johnson nails the tone of the film, creating a stylized world filed with mixtures of the old and new. Perhaps not for everyone, I thoroughly enjoyed this.

    More Info: [IMDB] [Amazon] [Capsule Review]

  • The Departed: Scorcese returns to form with this violent, stylized remake of Infernal Affairs. Excellent directing, acting, music, and an engaging story that retains the original’s feel, while adding some flourishes of it’s own.

    More Info: [IMDB] [Amazon]

  • United 93: A movie about 9/11 could have come off as horribly exploitive, but director Paul Greengrass managed to create an amazingly emotional experience without being manipulative. Unquestionably the most emotional experience I had at the movies this year (if not ever), for what I assume are obvious reasons.

    More Info: [IMDB] [Amazon]

Honorable Mention

As I’ve already mentioned above, the first two of the Honorable Mentions listed below could probably be interchangeable with the number 9 or 10 in the top 10. Part of why it was so hard to select was that these four films are just so different from one another. Indeed, the last two has changed back and forth several times (I started this list a while ago).

  • Pan’s Labyrinth: This could easily have been 9 or 10 on my list. Guillermo del Toro’s visually stunning tale of a young girl who seeks to escape her unpleasant reality with a fantasy world which ends up being… not much of an escape. It’s a great film, if a little bit of a downer. It actually ends on a note that is simultaneously tragic and triumphant, which is strange but impressive. Ultimately, I decided against it because it just didn’t surprise and excite me the way the other films on the list did.

    More Info: [IMDB] [Amazon]

  • The Matador: Pierce Brosnan plays against character (the anti-Bond) in this quirky film about a hit man (Brosnan) and his unlikely friendship with everyman/businessman Greg Kinnear. Dark humor, a sharp script and a progression that seems strange at first, but makes more sense as the film goes on. Again, this is interchangeable with the 9 or 10 picks above, and it’s probably more of a crowd-pleaser than you’d expect.

    More Info: [IMDB] [Amazon]

  • The Proposition: An Australian take on the western, this is a brutal film that is quite original, but also lacking something. Showcasing the grimy desolation of the untamed outback, this film also features one of the best opening scenes of the year (a disorienting gunfight that thrusts you into the story). Ultimately, it doesn’t work as well as it might seem, but it’s an interesting film.

    More Info: [IMDB] [Amazon]

  • Apocalypto: Mel Gibson’s offscreen shenanigans aside, this is actually a decent action/suspense film with one of the better chase sequences of the year. I didn’t think I’d be all that enthralled with the setting of the film, but Gibson managed to keep things interesting enough. A well made film that was nowhere near the disaster I thought it would be (seriously, who watched that trailer and thought it would be good?)

    More Info: [IMDB] [Amazon]

  • The Fountain: Darren Aronofsky’s trippy exploration of love and mortality is best described by the phrase “Interesting Failure.” It is undoubtedly the most gorgeous movie of the year, and all of the technical aspects of the film (direction, acting, cinematography, etc…) are outstanding. Unfortunately, it doesn’t add up to a whole lot, though there are deeper themes at work in the story that I admit I haven’t taken the time to parse (repeated viewings may fix that).

    More Info: [IMDB] [Amazon] [Full Review]

  • Mission Impossible III: Tom Cruise’s offscreen shenanigans aside (do we see a trend here?), MI III was actually one of the more enjoyable popcorn flicks of last summer. I think a large portion of the credit goes to Philip Seymour Hoffman’s small role as the villain. It’s probably the most enjoyable in the series, though I still don’t mind the first film.

    More Info: [IMDB] [Amazon]

  • The Illusionist: One of two good turn-of-the-century magician films, this movie was enjoyable. Writer/director Neil Burger makes some interesting stylistic choices and manages to coax a good performance out of Jessica Biel of all people. Ed Norton and Paul Giamatti are also excellent, of course.

    More Info: [IMDB] [Amazon]

  • The Prestige: The other (and seemingly more popular) turn-of-the-century magician film features an excellent cast and an intriguing story (even though I think they cheated a bit). Director Christopher Nolan is not as stylish as Burger, but he has crafted a good film.

    More Info: [IMDB] [Amazon]

  • Slither: Underrated and fun film in the cheesy horror/sci-fi/comedy tradition of Tremors. It’s not the best of its kind, but it was quite enjoyable and well done.

    More Info: [IMDB] [Amazon]

Worth Commenting

These are all decent films, but for some reason, I don’t find them as engaging as everyone else.

  • Children of Men: If there is a film that has less faith in humanity, I can’t think of one. This is one of the most depressing films of the year, and a few minutes of what I thought was “pretend hope” towards the end of the movie wasn’t enough to redeem it in my eyes. It’s well made, and there are some harrowing action sequences and long shots that are quite impressive, but it’s fundamentally pessimistic – a trait I just can’t stand in a movie.

    More Info: [IMDB] [Amazon]

  • Little Miss Sunshine: A fine film, but I must admit being a little baffled by the popular response to this movie. It’s not your typical Hollywood fare, which might be part of it, but it is emphatically your typical independent movie fare. I liked it, but didn’t love it.

    More Info: [IMDB] [Amazon]

  • V for Vendetta: A decent film that I found to be very sloppy and not all that engaging. The story seemed muddled and unecessarily repetitive and manipulative, and the action sequences were edited to death. It wasn’t a bad movie, but it wasn’t that great either.

    More Info: [IMDB] [Amazon]

Should have seen:

Allrighty then! That about wraps it up for the 2006 movie awards, and it’s about time. That said, I do have another idea for a post related to my top 10. Don’t worry, it’s not all about the movies (it’s more of a meta-top-10 type post, whatever that means).

In any case, comments are welcome. Feel free to express your outrage or approval in the comments.

2006 Kaedrin Movie Awards: Beating the Dead Horse

So the formally announced 2006 Kaedrin Movie Awards came to an end yesterday (Casino Royale appears to be the big winner, with a total of 3 awards), but I’m going to wring this particular subject for everything I can get, so here’s a few additional awards in the style of Alex’s Arbitrary Awards.

  • Most Genres in a Single Film: The World’s Fastest Indian – Four movies for the price of one. You’ve got the initial buddy comedy which morphs into a fish out of water story, then goes on a road trip, culminating in an inspirational sports drama. I really enjoyed this movie, and it would probably also qualify for an “Overlooked” award, if I had one.
  • Best Non-Western Western: The Proposition – I think this movie features the best opening sequence all year. It starts with a chaotic gunfight that immediately disorients the viewer, and consistently thwarts expecations throughout. Ultimately, this doesn’t work as well as it sounds, but it’s still a good movie and it features some of the most gorgeous photography all year (that is strangely able to evoke beauty while stressing an untamed desolation that’s not really that pretty).
  • The About Face Award: The Matador – Pierce Brosnan plays against character as a burnt-out hitman who befriends everyman/businessman Greg Kinnear. It’s a surprisingly effective film that doesn’t fall into the traps you’d think it would. A bold move by Brosnan.
  • Best High Concept Film: Snakes on a Plane – Duh.
  • Best Magic Tricks: The Prestige – I think I might have actually enjoyed The Illusionist more, but The Prestige had the more memorable tricks.

And that about does it. The only thing that remains is the top 10 list (coming on Sunday).

2006 Kaedrin Movie Awards: Best Action Sequences & Best Plot Twist/Surprise

The nominations for the 2006 Kaedrin Movie Awards were announced last week. This post marks the end of the formally nominated awards, but I’ll post another wrapup post with some miscellaneous awards tomorrow, and my top 10 films of 2006 on Sunday.

Best Action Sequences: Casino Royale

The action sequences in Casino Royale were superb. There were some who didn’t appreciate the initial footchase, which seemed to contain the fantastical elements of Wu Xia Pian films (most recently popularized by Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Hero, and House of Flying Daggers), but I loved it. The race to save the plane in the airport was pure Bond, a more traditional action sequence that was executed perfectly. There are a few other good sequences as well. The stiffest competition actually came from the other spy flick, MI III. A stunning opening sequence, as well as several other great set pieces propelled the film along nicely (though I don’t think it quite reaches Bond levels). Apocalypto is notable because of its extended chase sequence, which was well done and impressive. The space shuttle sequence in Superman Returns was the best moment in that film. In the end, Bond was just better than the competition.

Best Plot Twist/Surprise: The Departed

The Departed is a remake of the Hong Kong flick Infernal Affairs, and even though I had seen that movie, all of the shocking moments in The Departed were still effective, even though I knew they were coming. This speaks to just how impeccably staged this film is, and it is one of the best films of the year. All of the other nominees were quite good as well, with special mention of X-Men III: for all the film’s flaws, one can’t say the writers didn’t have guts. Unfortunately, X-Men was totally overshadowed by its offscreen shenanigans (i.e. Brett Ratner, Halle Berry, etc…)

This marks the end of the formal awards. Stay tuned for a wrapup post tomorrow (which may contain a few additional awards), as well as my top 10 movies of the year on Sunday.

2006 Kaedrin Movie Awards: Best Sequel & Biggest Disappointment

The nominations for the 2006 Kaedrin Movie Awards were announced last week. This week, I’ll be announcing two winners every day, culminating in a post with my top 10 movies of the year and possibly some other wrap-up posts. Here are the awards for Best Sequel and Biggest Disappointment:

Best Sequel: Casino Royale

This was a pretty easy decision. In the nominations, I mentioned that people like to return to characters they love, but that sequels aren’t often very good. In this case, I’ve never been much of a fan of James Bond, but after seeing Casino Royale, I am, and I’m greatly looking forward to the next film. I’m still making my way through all of the previous Bond films, but I honestly think this ranks somewhere in the upper echelon, if not number one (there are some mitigating factors here, but I will save for a later post). MI III was great fun, but completely overshadowed by Bond. Clerks II was a genuine surprise and one of my favorite movies of the year, but Bond still wins out.

Biggest Disappointment: The Fountain

This is actually quite a hard category. In theory, I can measure my dissapointment by taking the difference of my expectations and the actual quality of the film. Of course, both are subjective measures, so it’s still quite difficult. I think the reason The Fountain “wins” this award is not that it’s such a bad movie, but that my expectations were so very high. I remember reading about this “Untitled Aronofsky Sci-Fi Project” several years ago, and have been waiting patiently for it. I’ve come to expect a lot from Aronofsky, and while I think he produced one of the most beautiful looking movies in recent memory, I also think it’s missing something important. It’s an interesting and ambitious failure, which isn’t all that bad of a category to be put in. I certainly don’t think this movie is any worse than the other nominees (which were at least mildy entertaining or fun, The Da Vinci Code being the notable exception). Again, the big difference is that my expectations for the other nominees were relatively low. I wanted to see them all, and was excited to go to the theater, but for the most part, I felt the movies were mediocre.

On deck: Best Action Sequences and Best Plot Twist/Surprise

2006 Kaedrin Movie Awards: Most Visually Stunning & Best Sci-Fi or Horror Film

The nominations for the 2006 Kaedrin Movie Awards were announced last week. This week, I’ll be announcing two winners every day, culminating in a post with my top 10 movies of the year and possibly some other wrap-up posts. Here are the awards for Most Visually Stunning film and Best Sci-Fi or Horror Film:

Most Visually Stunning: The Fountain

Pretty much the only reason I included this category was so that I could give The Fountain an award. I didn’t love the movie, but I’ll be damned if it wasn’t the prettiest fucking movie I’ve seen in years. We’re talking jaw-dropping visuals here. I don’t think there’s a single shot in the movie that isn’t absolutely gorgeous. There is some stiff competition in this category, but nothing on the order of The Fountain. Ironically, the only movie that gives Fountain a run for it’s money is Pan’s Labyrinth, which wasn’t nominated because it just came out in wide release this week (I have since seen it, and it is indeed a visually impressive work).

Best Sci-Fi or Horror Film: The Descent

I think this would be mildly controversial if the competition wasn’t so lame this year. The Descent certainly has it’s detractors and it’s not a perfect film, but I still enjoyed it a lot. It’s the only one of the nominated films that evoked sustained suspense, and that means a lot in my book. Hostel did make me squirm (which is no small feat), but was ultimately a little too sloppy and schlockey to compete. Slither was a ton of fun in a Tremors sorta way, but not at all scary. A Scanner Darkly was interesting and visually neat, though it’s ultimately a mess. Unfortunately, the Sci-Fi/Horror genre didn’t get much attention this year, so there really wasn’t much to choose from. Still, when I think of my favorite moviegoing experiences of the year, The Descent ranks somewhere near the top (this is undoubtedly because I saw it at a movie festival in a theater filled with movie lovers, as opposed to the typical multiplex filled with obnoxious morons). It has issues and I wouldn’t consider it a truly great film, but entertaining, creepy and suspenseful.

Next up: Best Sequel and Biggest Disappointment

2006 Kaedrin Movie Awards: Best Comedic Performance & Breakthrough Performance

The nominations for the 2006 Kaedrin Movie Awards were announced last week. This week, I’ll be announcing two winners every day, culminating in a post with my top 10 movies of the year and possibly some other wrap-up posts. Here comes the Best Comedic Performance and Breakthrough Performance awards:

Best Comedic Performance: Sacha Baron Cohen in Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

There really wasn’t much of a choice here. Sacha Baron Cohen so completely embodies the Borat character and follows through on every detail, no matter how embarrassing or strange it may be. It’s probably not my favorite comedy of the year, but this is without a doubt the best comedic performance of the year. No one else lays it on the line quite like this. All of the other candidates were also great, but didn’t quite display the intensity that Sacha Baron Cohen does. One performance I should have mentioned is John C. Reilly in Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby. Reilly is one of those tireless character actors that you’ve seen a hundred times without ever really knowing who he is… and he held his own with Will Ferrell. If there was a Best Comedic Performance, Supporting Character he’d totally be all over that.

Breakthrough Performance: Rosario Dawson in Clerks II

This was a really, really difficult decision (perhaps because my criteria was so specific and personal that everyone who was nominated was a quality choice). After banging my head against the wall, I was able to whittle the list down to two performances: Rosario Dawson in Clerks II and Ellen Page in Hard Candy. Choosing between these two is nearly impossible because they couldn’t be more different. But if I was forced to choose, I think I’d have to go with Rosario Dawson. I knew of her and had seen her in a couple of other movies, but I never really noticed her much… and she was absolutely resplendant in Clerks II. Maybe it was because she was acting opposite a bunch of non-professional actors, but she totally out-performed everyone in the film. She was just a lot of fun and really cool, the type of girl you can see loving. Ellen Page gives an outstanding performance, especially when you consider her age. She scares me, though I guess that was the point (you have to see the movie to understand, but be forewarned, it’s no picnic). This is an extremely subjective category, so I don’t think I’d expect anyone else to agree with my selections (even some of the other nominations), but I think it’s a fun one. What do you think?

On deck: Most Visually Stunning and Best Sci-Fi or Horror Film